I'm missing something here. Is someone being forced to do this?
I used to work next to a guy who would play his music so loud that I could hear his earphones from the next cube over. I'd have loved it if he used bone conduction so that I could work in silence.
Its not necessarily bad, but the size difference between this product and the current camera-phones makes it more like a camera that one can make phonecalls from rather than a phone that takes pictures.
It's very impressive and all, but how is this going to benefit me down the line? It's not like they're affordable to small/medium businesses like the Cray or HP's highly valued Alpha DEC workstations.
Are you kidding? A couple years from now you'll be seeing these things, shrink wrapped, on the shelves at Best Buy.
I think these things will be effective exactly until they get popular. Then either bits of masking tape will be put over the IR receivers of public TVs or someone will create remote/IR pairs that are somehow specific to one another (like some sort of ID encoded in the IR signal). The harder part will be retrofitting existing TVs with such an ID-based remote (harder, but hardly impossible).
from TFA: For all his technical brilliance, he was a poor businessman.
I think that's the real point. It certainly wasn't technical superiority that got Microsoft where it is today. It was marketing superiority.
Folks, if they saw a laser dot inside the cockpit, it means that the laser was somehow originating from nearby. Without a pretty sophisticated targeting mechanism and a really good laser, there's no way that anyone is going to track a target the size of the cockpit windows from thousands of feet away.
There's another thing I find odd -- we have a reflex when a bright light suddenly shines in our eyes -- we move our heads, avert our eyes and squint. If the pilot's eye was damaged without this happening, it means that the laser was either a lot stronger than 5 milliwatt, or not in the visible spectrum (again how would targeting such a laser work?).
Something seems weird about this whole story.
Re:What does this say about Earth imaging?
on
Making Tracks on Mars
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Makes me wonder what spy satellites can do, what commercial imaging satellites can do, and what DHS wants to let us have.
The government spy satelites can actually image individual crinkles on our tin-foil hats.
Three words "Missile Tracking Systems" -- can you imagine the consternation of the various nuclear powers as an ICBM is launched? Would *you* trust the reassurance of a foreign power that "you have nothing to worry about, that scary looking missile is going to impact in a volcano in the middle of nowhere. No, really. And besides, it has no payload, well it has a whole bunch of highly radioactive material that would be act as an appallingly destructive 'dirty bomb' if it were to impact in the wrong place, like one of your major cities, but really that won't happen. Trust us."
Its an idea I've heard mentioned before (can't remember where) and on the face of it, seems like a good one. However, I'm not so certain it would be a cheap method of disposal. If I remember my college geology, most of the subduction zones are under water, which would raise the cost of drilling the disposal hole. Also there tend to be earthquakes along plate boundaries (including subductions zones) which might collapse the disposal hole, making re-drilling necessary.
The point is that it passes a significant milestone, i.e. the length of time it takes for the radiation to fade. If it just increased the storage time to, say 500 years, then I would agree with your assessement. TFA, however, claims that this basically keeps the stuff safe until its no longer a radioactive threat. That's important. Lowering the cost of processing is a nice bonus, but less important (IMO) than that 200,000 year figure.
Actually we do the same thing in some small towns in the US (like mine). The major technological difference is that we put the ballots in a wooden box when we're done.
Re:Missing option...
on
Animal Robots
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Check out this article in Science News recently. They're investigating the way various aquatic animals move through the water. One of these is, in fact, the penguin, for its agility and manuverability in the water.
Organic power sources
on
Animal Robots
·
· Score: 3, Funny
All they have to do is combine these concepts with the Robot that eats flies and we'll have invented the toad!
Just think, the article's mention of that Disney robot dinosaur:
...nine-foot dinosaur robot named Lucky that sometimes roams the Disney theme parks.
...could have the phrase "...eating the occasional visitor." added to it.
The article didn't say "100% secure", and with good reason (IMO). Historically, that "100% secure" claim hasn't panned out. Sooner or later, some obnoxious killjoy always seems to come along and break the encryption.
While I understand (I think) why its necessary, it still seems kinda funny that they'd be doing the whole clean-room proceedure after pulling the thing out of a pile of dirt.
As an American, I find American politics to be disturbing. However, I don't think this is a particularly American problem. I've gotten the distinct impression that the problem of a grotesquely uninformed electorate is a universal one.
It just seems that for the vast majority of people, determining the veracity of what's being said is either too much trouble or too painful (if it turns out that one's pre-concieved notions are incorrect). Its just easier to believe whatever feels good and to move in the direction that's less frightening.
An analogy: Your parent/spouse/roommate/etc asks you what you want for dinner. You say "I don't care". They cook a nice pasta dish. You sit down, look at it and say "I hate pasta. This dinner sucks." Exactly how long do you suppose it would be before you're wearing that pasta?
You were asked you opinion. By choosing not to vote, you effectively say "I don't care". You certainly can complain, just don't be surprised when you're called a hypocrite. If you cared, you should have voted.
No! Teaching them about it will just make them think that its OK and they'll do it more! The best thing to do is to explain to them that abstenance from computing is the only way to be really safe.
Wait... what were we talking about again?
Is there a reason that this information is being aimed specifically at teenagers? I know an awful lot of adults that could use a good straighforward explaination of this material.
...because readers are in control; they have the option of running their mouse over the words and clicking on the links.
Except, now there's apparently no way to tell the difference between an informational link inserted by the author and commercial crap that will just waste your time if you click on it.
Unless there's some way to turn this off, or filter it out, this just looks like another step in the removal of the internet's informational utility to me.
I read an article (I believe it was in Science News) indicating that blind-from-birth people actually used their visual cortex to process sounds. Basically we use it to build up our model of the world around us.
I'm not saying it could be retrained to process visual information after a lifetime of other use, I just thought its cool how the brain can effectively rewire itself. Kinda like detaching the speakers from your computer and having the sound card automatically start processing graphics (or something)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm always a little uneasy about software that is in the pre-1.0 state. Can anyone speak to its reliablility?
I'm missing something here. Is someone being forced to do this? I used to work next to a guy who would play his music so loud that I could hear his earphones from the next cube over. I'd have loved it if he used bone conduction so that I could work in silence.
Here are a few more pictures of the device.
Its not necessarily bad, but the size difference between this product and the current camera-phones makes it more like a camera that one can make phonecalls from rather than a phone that takes pictures.
I think these things will be effective exactly until they get popular. Then either bits of masking tape will be put over the IR receivers of public TVs or someone will create remote/IR pairs that are somehow specific to one another (like some sort of ID encoded in the IR signal). The harder part will be retrofitting existing TVs with such an ID-based remote (harder, but hardly impossible).
Not to worry, you'd have your cell phone right there to call 911 on!
from TFA: For all his technical brilliance, he was a poor businessman. I think that's the real point. It certainly wasn't technical superiority that got Microsoft where it is today. It was marketing superiority.
Folks, if they saw a laser dot inside the cockpit, it means that the laser was somehow originating from nearby. Without a pretty sophisticated targeting mechanism and a really good laser, there's no way that anyone is going to track a target the size of the cockpit windows from thousands of feet away. There's another thing I find odd -- we have a reflex when a bright light suddenly shines in our eyes -- we move our heads, avert our eyes and squint. If the pilot's eye was damaged without this happening, it means that the laser was either a lot stronger than 5 milliwatt, or not in the visible spectrum (again how would targeting such a laser work?). Something seems weird about this whole story.
Three words "Missile Tracking Systems" -- can you imagine the consternation of the various nuclear powers as an ICBM is launched? Would *you* trust the reassurance of a foreign power that "you have nothing to worry about, that scary looking missile is going to impact in a volcano in the middle of nowhere. No, really. And besides, it has no payload, well it has a whole bunch of highly radioactive material that would be act as an appallingly destructive 'dirty bomb' if it were to impact in the wrong place, like one of your major cities, but really that won't happen. Trust us."
Its an idea I've heard mentioned before (can't remember where) and on the face of it, seems like a good one. However, I'm not so certain it would be a cheap method of disposal. If I remember my college geology, most of the subduction zones are under water, which would raise the cost of drilling the disposal hole. Also there tend to be earthquakes along plate boundaries (including subductions zones) which might collapse the disposal hole, making re-drilling necessary.
Also there there tend to be volcanoes associated with subduction zones -- would this mean there's a risk of particularly radioactive magma?
The point is that it passes a significant milestone, i.e. the length of time it takes for the radiation to fade. If it just increased the storage time to, say 500 years, then I would agree with your assessement. TFA, however, claims that this basically keeps the stuff safe until its no longer a radioactive threat. That's important. Lowering the cost of processing is a nice bonus, but less important (IMO) than that 200,000 year figure.
Actually we do the same thing in some small towns in the US (like mine). The major technological difference is that we put the ballots in a wooden box when we're done.
SpamMassacre? SpamAbbatoir? WeaponOfSpamDestruction?
Check out this article in Science News recently. They're investigating the way various aquatic animals move through the water. One of these is, in fact, the penguin, for its agility and manuverability in the water.
Just think, the article's mention of that Disney robot dinosaur:
The article didn't say "100% secure", and with good reason (IMO). Historically, that "100% secure" claim hasn't panned out. Sooner or later, some obnoxious killjoy always seems to come along and break the encryption.
While I understand (I think) why its necessary, it still seems kinda funny that they'd be doing the whole clean-room proceedure after pulling the thing out of a pile of dirt.
As an American, I find American politics to be disturbing. However, I don't think this is a particularly American problem. I've gotten the distinct impression that the problem of a grotesquely uninformed electorate is a universal one.
It just seems that for the vast majority of people, determining the veracity of what's being said is either too much trouble or too painful (if it turns out that one's pre-concieved notions are incorrect). Its just easier to believe whatever feels good and to move in the direction that's less frightening.
An analogy: Your parent/spouse/roommate/etc asks you what you want for dinner. You say "I don't care". They cook a nice pasta dish. You sit down, look at it and say "I hate pasta. This dinner sucks." Exactly how long do you suppose it would be before you're wearing that pasta?
You were asked you opinion. By choosing not to vote, you effectively say "I don't care". You certainly can complain, just don't be surprised when you're called a hypocrite. If you cared, you should have voted.
No! Teaching them about it will just make them think that its OK and they'll do it more! The best thing to do is to explain to them that abstenance from computing is the only way to be really safe.
Wait... what were we talking about again?
Is there a reason that this information is being aimed specifically at teenagers? I know an awful lot of adults that could use a good straighforward explaination of this material.
Except, now there's apparently no way to tell the difference between an informational link inserted by the author and commercial crap that will just waste your time if you click on it.
Unless there's some way to turn this off, or filter it out, this just looks like another step in the removal of the internet's informational utility to me.
I'm not saying it could be retrained to process visual information after a lifetime of other use, I just thought its cool how the brain can effectively rewire itself. Kinda like detaching the speakers from your computer and having the sound card automatically start processing graphics (or something)